From all-out war with US to the return of an exiled prince: What happens next in Iran?

https://static.independent.co.uk/2026/01/13/07/Germany_Iran_34576.jpg?width=1200&auto=webp&crop=3%3A2

Anger at a spiralling economy and decades of authoritarian rule in Iran has exploded onto the streets of major cities across the country.

For two weeks, in massive nationwide rallies, protesters have called for regime change, chanting “death to the dictator”, and in some quarters even calling for a return to the monarchy that was toppled in the 1979 revolution which ushered in the current Islamic Republic.

The Iranian government, still reeling from a disastrous 12-day war with Israeli and US forces last year, has met the protests with a bloody crackdown. An official told Reuters as many as 2,000 people could have been killed. More than 10,000 arrested. And a nationwide communications blackout is still largely in place.

Donald Trump has threatened military action and sanctions, but also said the Iranian government has reached out to negotiate. The regime insists it is in control and has warned it will hit Israeli and US targets in the region hard if attacked.

For the first time, Iranian experts are saying this is the gravest existential threat to Iran’s clerical rulers. So what could happen?

The protests have been met with extreme violence. The few eyewitness accounts that civilians have managed to get out via satellite connections describe the authorities opening fire on rallies. Recently, shocking videos have emerged of hundreds of bodies littering a forensic facility in south Tehran. The government blames the death toll on riots and “domestic terrorists”.

The fear is that protests could fizzle out amid a growing crackdown and mass arrests, especially if there is no external intervention challenging the all-powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other armed wings of the state.

As Negar Mortazavi, host of The Iran Podcast and senior fellow of US-based Center for International Policy points out, while the regime is the “underdog” right now, especially after last year’s bombardment by Israel, it still retains a strong central control.

“Yes, they have a legitimacy crisis. Yes, people come to the streets in protest once every couple of years, but they have never been able to pose an existential crisis to the regime … The regime has a monopoly on arms, power and violence.”

The protesters have been largely non-violent.

Aside from small armed factions such as Kurdish and Baloch separatist movements, there are no rebel armies in Iran positioned to take on the establishment, as seen in Syria or Libya.

The fear is that the crackdown would continue with further arrests, torture and killings.

Donald Trump has overnight doubled down on threats of military strikes on Iran, after joining Israel in bombing the country last year. US citizens have been ordered to leave Iran immediately. Trump also announced sweeping 25 per cent tariffs on countries trading with Iran, which will intensify the economic pressure on the regime.

That could push countries like the UAE, China, Turkey and India to downgrade economic ties with Tehran at a critical moment.

Last year’s 12-day war with Israel and the US was devastating for Iran, with swathes of military infrastructure – including air defences, and nuclear facilities – destroyed. The military leadership was also targeted.

Although Iran has vowed a swift missile response against Israel and US bases in the region if attacked, it remains unclear how it would do that. Its regional allies, in countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, have also been downgraded by Israel’s continued operations, and so are less able or willing to come to their aid.

Putting aside the legality of any potential strike and the civilian toll, would this assist protesters or not? As Bilal Y Saab of Chatham House writes, we just don’t know.

“Much depends on the nature of the strike, Trump’s appetite to follow through, and his ability to come up with a plan after the strike. The effects could range from disaster to deliverance,” he adds.

If it were a one-off, largely performative strike, it could harden the regime against protesters, who are already accused of being funded by foreign agents.

Even if Trump were to kill supreme leader Ali Khamenei or force him to flee, Iran’s constitution includes an emergency plan for appointing a successor. As Saab notes, the brutal and organised IRGC could even formally take over.

Would Trump, the self-styled peacemaker and champion of “America first” foreign policy, be willing to go all the way to engineer regime change – engaging in a potentially disastrous drawn-out military occupation as they did in Iraq post 2003? His recent intervention in Venezuela suggests he is unwilling to commit to full-scale regime change.

That said, protesters have been “emboldened” by Trump’s statements, even holding up signs praising him, explains Gissou Nia, an Iranian-American human rights lawyer who works at the Atlantic Council.

The regime would also struggle to simultaneously defend itself militarily and crush escalating nationwide protests. Especially if those strikes weakened all tools of internal repression, including the Basij, a volunteer paramilitary force within the IRGC’s wider structure.

There is an option where the regime pursues largely performative adjustments – for example, limited economic reforms or a shift in rhetoric towards nationalism rather than ideology. That could go hand in hand with direct negotiations with Trump to avoid military strikes and harsher sanctions.

Such reforms would fall far short of the demands from the protesters who have explicitly called for the overthrow of the regime. But amid a sweep of arrests and executions, fear could suppress further mobilisation. Any hope of external support against the state’s armed network would be shattered if Trump is seen negotiating directly with Iran’s top leadership.

Since protests erupted, the one-time crown prince Reza Pahlavi, who has lived in exile in the US for decades, has urged protesters to take to the streets. He has even said he is preparing to return to Iran, despite not having set foot in the country since 1979, when his father, the last Shah of Iran, was overthrown.

Pahlavi retains a modest monarchist support base and some protesters have chanted “Long live the Shah”. He did declare himself the ruler of Iran in a ceremony in Egypt in 1980, just a year after his father’s overthrow, but has since distanced himself from calls to restore Iran’s Peacock throne.

Instead, he has outlined a 100-day transition plan, telling reporters it is “not about restoring the past” but securing a democratic future “for all Iranians”.

Last year, he told Politico his main aim was to steer Iran through this transition. He has proposed a constitutional conference of Iranian representatives, which would gather to devise a new settlement to be ratified by referendum.

Asked whether he wanted the monarchy restored, he said in June: “I’m not going to be the one to decide that. My role is to make sure no voice is left behind, whether republican or monarchist, left or right.”

Iran is richly diverse. Ethnic minorities, including Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Balochis, make up close to half of the population, according to the Atlantic Council. They have long accused the central government of discrimination. Some seek greater autonomy and even independence.

Kurdish Iranian opposition figures told The Independent this week they would push for a federal system that grants semi-autonomy to regions such as Kurdistan. They are firmly opposed to Pahlavi’s return.

For most experts, this remains the least likely outcome. The scale of external intervention required to install Pahlavi or radically restructure Iran into a federal system would be enormous. It is unclear how popular either plan is among a population of nearly 90 million.